ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Lowering Barriers to Health Risk Assessments in Promoting Personalized Health Management.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning for the Analysis of Healthy Lifestyle Data: Scoping Review and Guidelines.JMIR human factors · 2026Guideline
- Low Back Pain in Korea: Survey Weighted Analysis with Age Sex and Lumbar Radiographic Grade Matching.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association Between Joint Pain and Cancer in 8.45 Million Korean Adults: Insights from a National Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Population health management through human phenotype ontology with policy for ecosystem improvement.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the feasibility of accurately predicting adverse health events without relying on costly data acquisition methods, such as laboratory tests, in the era of shifting healthcare paradigms towards community-based health promotion and personalized preventive healthcare through individual health risk assessments (HRAs). We assessed the incremental predictive value of four categories of predictor variables-demographic, lifestyle and family history, personal health device, and laboratory data-organized by data acquisition costs in the prediction of the risks of mortality and five chronic diseases. Machine learning methodologies were employed to develop risk prediction models, assess their predictive performance, and determine feature importance. Using data from the National Sample Cohort of the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS), which includes eligibility, medical check-up, healthcare utilization, and mortality data from 2002 to 2019, our study involved 425,148 NHIS members who underwent medical check-ups between 2009 and 2012. Models using demographic, lifestyle, family history, and personal health device data, with or without laboratory data, showed comparable performance. A feature importance analysis in models excluding laboratory data highlighted modifiable lifestyle factors, which are a superior set of variables for developing health guidelines. Our findings support the practicality of precise HRAs using demographic, lifestyle, family history, and personal health device data. This approach addresses HRA barriers, particularly for healthy individuals, by eliminating the need for costly and inconvenient laboratory data collection, advancing accessible preventive health management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.